MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065540163 · doi:10.1177/107906320201400402

Issues Concerning the Reliability and Validity of the Diagnosis of Sexual Sadism Applied in Prison Settings

2002· article· en· W2065540163 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Abuse · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Community Safety and Correctional ServicesQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPrisonMedical diagnosisClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychiatric diagnosisMedicineCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined limited aspects of the diagnoses of sexual sadism among incarcerated sexual offenders. The diagnoses examined in this study were made by experienced forensic psychiatrists following DSM-III-R or DSM-IV criteria. Archival data was extracted on 51 sexual offenders for whom a psychiatric evaluation had been requested. Analyses of offense history and features, offender self-reports, and phallometric data, indicated few differences between those offenders diagnosed as sadists and those not so diagnosed. In fact, where there were differences, the data indicated that the nonsadists were the most deviant. The results are discussed in terms of their meaning for both forensic practice in prisons and the value of the diagnosis of sexual sadism.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it